Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:02:30 +0200

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> Well postulates seem to me to be different from the kind of ad hoc
> suppositions that play a role in proofs, though I'm not sure I could explain
> what the difference was.

There are only a few evidentials, and I think that postulate, supposition,
premise, axiom, & hypothesis are all in the same boat as far as that goes. In
theory, one of the evidentials should apply to every claim.

> In any case, I think that there are at least a
> couple of other cases in the corpus where {da'i} and {da'inai} were used to
> bracket various kinds of indirect proofs within greater proofs (maybe both
> negative proofs in the cases that I can think of), so usage seems to be on
> toward established, since I can't think of a case with {ru'a}.

I'm just suggesting that 'ru'a' could be added, e.g.

.i ru'a da'i broda .i da'inai brode

since, after all, you're not actually claiming brode (which 'da'inai' kind of
implies), but rather just claiming it as the conclusion given the premise.

mu'o mi'e .adam.